Teen Arrested For Emoji-Laden 'Terroristic Threats'

from the the-smoking-emoji dept

The question will probably never be satisfactorily answered, but here it is again: what constitutes a "terroristic threat?" According to the NYPD, it's a line of emoji (emoticons) guns pointing at an emoji cop's heads.

Osiris Aristy, a 17-year-old from Brooklyn, does not hold back in his Facebook status updates. He posts about his love for blunts and cough syrup, wanting to buy his mother a bigger home, and his disdain for the police.

Most of Aristy’s anti-cop status updates seem tame compared to the vitriol found all over the internet. They are not altogether different from many hip-hop lyrics, where the figure of the cop killer is sometimes an archetype of rebellion and power.

But on the evening of Jan. 15, according to a criminal complaint, Aristy posted a photo of a revolver with bullets beside it, and wrote he felt “like katxhin a body right now.”

Shortly thereafter, he posted the following:

N***a run up on me, he gunna get blown down,' followed by an emoji of a police officer with three gun emojis pointed at it, according to a criminal complaint.

And at 11:05 p.m., Aristy posted "F**k the 83 104 79 98 73 PCTKKKK," followed by the police officer emoji with two gun emojis pointed at it, the DA's office said.

Here's some of Aristy's earlier "work," for illustrative purposes.


That was enough for the NYPD. Three days later, Aristy was arrested. Due to the recent death of two officers at the hands of a man who posted threats online and actually followed through with him, the NYPD is taking every precaution to avoid a repeat of this tragedy. But this insight into its everyday tactics should give would-be criminals pause, as well as anyone else in the New York City area with publicly-accessible social media accounts.

Police received an arrest warrant from District Attorney Ken Thompson's office after routine Facebook monitoring found that Aristy had posted selfies with guns, selfies with marijuana joints and statements made with emojis threatening to kill cops, according to the DA's office and 83rd Precinct Inspector Maximo Tolentino.

"Routine Facebook monitoring." That sort of statement demands a follow-up, but the NYPD being the NYPD, there won't be any further details forthcoming. Is it some sort of data grabbing software that focuses on keywords and location? Or is it a handful of cops actively monitoring feeds and only capturing "relevant" information? Or is it just a terrible way of rephrasing "someone reported a threat and the NYPD followed up on it." The latter seems most likely, considering Aristy's earlier posts using the same emoji-gun-pointed-at-emoji-cop imagery was ignored.

One thing is for certain: the NYPD is all over perceived threats.

Ever since the December’s lone gunman made good on an Instagram threat to kill two cops, the NYPD has arrested at least five people for threatening police on social media.

(The actual number of cases is likely higher. The NYPD did not respond to repeated requests for the exact number of people arrested on such charges. The department also did not respond to questions regarding the criteria used to decide when to make arrests based on online threats.)

And no further details there, either.

The underlying dilemma will likely never go away completely. There's no bright line between talking smack and issuing threats. A threat isn't a threat without intent and it's very difficult to prove its existence (or lack thereof). But the New York state statute governing terroristic threats -- like many others around the nation -- is a product of post-9/11 legislating. And like the others, it's overly broad. While it still requires prosecutors to prove intent, it's wide open enough to sweep up stupid statements, trash talking and about a million aspiring rappers.

The statute says that any statement intending to intimidate civilians or the government by threatening to commit a specific offense can be prosecuted as terrorism. It adds that a defendant’s unwillingness or inability to actually carry out the threat “shall be no defense.”

Applied to Aristy's emoji, this statute seems to fail. No specific offense is contained in his postings. Only vague but violent assertions. On the other hand, the photo of the revolver adds credence to Aristy's ability, if not his willingness, to carry out the emoji-illustrated threats.

As for the intent, that will be determined in court, if the judge doesn't dismiss the case altogether. Because of the law's broad wording and the NYPD's increased surveillance of suspicious social media posts, there's plenty of room for intimidation and abuse.

“The threshold to make an arrest is not the same as the one for a conviction,” [NY University law professor] Neuborne said. “This gives the police very significant power to harass people.”

Since the bar to obtain an arrest warrant on charges of making terroristic threats is only probable cause of the author’s intent, the NYPD could potentially arrest anyone who makes anti-cop statements, even if they come in the form of emojis.

Aristy is likely looking at doing time, even if the terroristic threat charge is dismissed. Police found 25 grams of marijuana and a gun while searching his residence.

The defining line between threats and free speech is still muddied. A case before the Supreme Court -- involving Anthony Elonis' social media postings (he says the posts were "rap lyrics," his ex-wife and local law enforcement believe they are "true threats") will attempt to sort this out. Whether the ruling will actually clear anything up remains to be seen. At the moment, it's still a great way for stupid and obnoxious people to get arrested for typing faster than their brains can process. Or, as in the case of Aristy, a way to turn self-proclaimed street cred into a prison sentence.

Filed Under: emojis, nypd, overreaction, terroristic threat, threats

Tweeted 'Terroristic Threat' Lands Another Teen In Trouble

from the it's-like-the-word-'threat'-has-lost-all-meaning dept

Here we go again. Another teen fires off a post on social media platform and ends up being portrayed by school administrators as "terroristic." This particular incident somehow finds the teen in question unharassed by law enforcement and unthreatened with a lengthy prison sentence, but it still contains lots of baffling details.

Tyson Leon, 16, was indefinitely suspended from school sports in late August after sending a tweet that school officials said constituted a terroristic threat.

He denies threatening anyone, and in U.S. District Court in St. Paul on Tuesday, attorney Meg Kane argued that the suspension is a violation of her client’s constitutional rights.

Leon wrestles and plays football for a Shakopee, MN high school. Over a weekend before the football season kicked off, he sent the following tweet.

“Im boutta drill my ‘teammates’ on Monday.”

Even those with only a passing familiarity with full contact sports will recognize that "drilling" means tackling someone hard. Even those with no sports experience would probably fail to see this as any sort of threat. However, those with vivid imaginations and panicky hands to wring saw Leon's tweet as something much more serious. Leon was hauled off the bus on the way to football practice and taken to the administrator's office for questioning.

Head coach Jody Stone and [athletic director] Janke met the boy in a conference room, closed the door and began interrogating him, according to Kane and Leon’s family.

“Neither … Janke nor Stone informed T.L.’s parents of their intent to interrogate T.L.,” the lawsuit said. “T.L. did not feel free to leave because of … Janke and Stone’s position as school officials.”

During this informal chat that Leon was compelled to attend, the two school officials raised allegations about the student's possible "chemical use" during a football retreat, along with confronting him about the tweet.

A later meeting involving Leon's parents dealt only with the tweet.

On Aug. 26, during a meeting with Leon and his parents, Stone and Janke produced a printed copy of Leon’s tweet about drilling his teammates, the lawsuit said. They said nothing more about the allegations of chemical use. A letter to the family dated Aug. 29 didn’t mention the chemical use either, but said Leon’s behavior violated school and league rules and that he was indefinitely suspended.

Leon was indefinitely suspended from the football team (although this wasn't clear at the time). The school claimed this was a result of cumulative violations and not because of his tweet. Leon has had three previous suspensions from the team, for a verbal altercation, a fight that occurred off school grounds and "chemical use" at a party in January. His parents didn't fight any of these previous suspensions, feeling Leon needed to suffer the consequences of his actions. However, they did object to the latest one, which was seemingly tied solely to Leon's tweet.

The school's logic for Leon's latest suspension was laid out by the district's attorney, Carla White.

On Tuesday, White pointed out that the suspension resulted from Leon’s fourth violation and that he and his family received a letter after his third violation reminding them that violations are cumulative and could cost him his eligibility.

The fourth violation apparently being the "threatening" tweet that contained no threat. As is detailed above, the letter sent to Leon's parent made no mention of the more recent alleged "chemical use." But, just in case anyone feels compelled to argue the latest suspension had nothing to do with the tweet, White's further statements make that crystal clear.

“Every single school administrator who read [the tweet] believed that he was threatening harm,” White said.

That doesn't say much for the administrators. Even the judge hearing the preliminary arguments had trouble buying that claim.

The judge questioned why, if administrators truly believed that the tweet was a threat, police weren’t called to the school.

Good question, especially considering it takes very little for most schools to call in law enforcement, whether its non-threatening "threats" being posted on social media or rumors of a water balloon fight.

White countered the judge's question by reaffirming the administrators' collective terrible judgement.

“They did believe it was a threat,” White said. “They did believe it was going to happen on Monday. They took care of it.”

Leon's family sued the school for violating Leon's constitutional rights, but it appears to have been settled after a meeting by both parties with the judge. The school has reinstated Leon to the wrestling team (of some importance to the student -- reportedly he's being scouted by a local college) but held onto his suspension from the football team.

This is probably the best possible outcome (barring a striking of his fourth suspension over a non-threatening tweet) considering Leon's attorney's statements show she was relying on a couple of dubious legal arguments. First, she claims Leon's participation in extracurricular sports is a "property right," but most schools view these as purely optional parts of the educational experience, something that often requires participants to follow extra rules the rest of the non-participating school body is exempt from. In fact, schools are under no federal obligation to provide interscholastic sports programs due to the extra financial burden it can place on schools for uniforms, travel, salaries, etc. So, from both the student side and the administrative side, these sports programs are clearly optional and in no way resemble a "right." Leon may have been concerned about his future scholarship chances, but three previous incidents indicate his desire for future sports participation was often overridden by his questionable judgement.

Second, Meg Kane claims the school violated rights by accessing "private" social media accounts. This is a tough sell in most courts. Even IF Leon's accounts were set to "private," anyone receiving his tweets, posts, etc. could easily disseminate them further. A "private" social media account is pretty much a misnomer and attempting to claim the school violated his privacy by accessing public postings (even if these were limited or filtered in any way) is a non-starter. There's a better argument to be made that rights were violated by the school's response to his protected speech, but there's not much to be had going the privacy route.

But, given all this, the question still remains: why did the school treat this tweet the way it did? It took a hard line, claiming it was a "terroristic threat" and questioned Leon without informing his parents. It also never informed the police, meaning the administration didn't view this as an actual threat, no matter what its legal representation says.

And if it didn't consider it to be a true threat -- either at the point of interception or after hearing Leon's explanation of the tweet -- why did it insist on following through with the suspension? Was it a way to punish him for the alleged "chemical use" it couldn't nail down conclusively but still believed occurred given Leon's disciplinary track record?

No matter what the rationale, the entire incident makes the Shakopee administration look ridiculous and even slightly vindictive. It clearly had nothing to do with this "terroristic" tweet and yet it followed through with the disciplinary actions and didn't bother clearing up any misunderstandings until it was facing a lawsuit. That's no way to run a school.

Filed Under: schools, suspension, terroristic threat, tweets, tyson leon